And so what is the point of your comment? If you have not read what I said why make uninformed comments on what I said? — Fooloso4

I noticed you were finally referring to Plato instead of Socrates. That's good. :up:

What I said is that Plato never speaks in the dialogues
— Fooloso4

And that "proves" he was an atheist? By what logical reasoning??? — Apollodorus

And this is your example of logical reasoning? They are two different things. I think even you must know that.

Your frequent appeal to the Church Fathers is telling. You have shown yourself to be just as intolerant to views that contradict your orthodoxies as they were.

Yes, as Frank says, we were congratulating you for finally acknowledging that we are talking about Plato, not about Socrates, and that you have not proved that your theory that Plato was an atheist is correct. Congrats! :up:

Yes, as Frank says, we were congratulating you for finally acknowledging that we are talking about Plato, not about Socrates, and that you have not proved that your theory that Plato was an atheist is correct. Congrats! :up: — Apollodorus

Yes. As @Metaphysician Undercover mentioned, Socrates wasn't an atheist. He just had unusual ideas about divinity.

Plato certainly wasn't an atheist. There's overlap between our idea of nature, and their ideas of divinity.

There was no concept of a world without divinity at that time. That came much later

Correct. Religious reform, not denial of the divine. That's why charges of "atheism" against Plato are not only inconsistent with the evidence but also positively anachronistic.

A true zealot never rests. You must be very tired.

I disagree. A true zealot is always full of energy and inspiration and never tires.

Anyway, why don't you tell us the truth? Why did you start this thread? Was it just because Banno asked you to, or was there some other reason? I am curious to know. I think we can still talk to one another even if we disagree on some minor things.

A true zealot never rests. You must be very tired. — Fooloso4

It's not zealotry to point out that Plato wasn't an atheist. Its just a fact.

You are right, but it is being "pointed out" repeatedly following everything I say across two threads. It's just a fact.

Just go ahead and acknowledge it, then. What's the problem?

I disagree. A true zealot is always full of energy and inspiration and never tires. — Apollodorus

I stand corrected, you never tire in you zealotry.

Why did you start this thread? — Apollodorus

Asked and answered. But your never ending game requires it have its place in the cycle.

The already identified the problem.

Asked and answered. But your never ending game requires it have its place in the cycle. — Fooloso4

:grin: You're talking about me getting "tired" but I think it's rather you who is getting tired and it's still early in the morning. You are beginning to speak in parables and riddles. Maybe you think you are Socrates or Plato?

Anyway, this your own statement:

Of course it proves nothing. It is not about proof. It is about learning how to read an author who has something to hide. — Fooloso4

You have admittedly failed to prove your theory but still keep claiming that you have proved it. And that, without any evidence whatsoever!

So, why did you start this thread if you knew that you can't prove your "atheism" theory?

You're talking about me getting "tired" but I think it's rather you who is getting tired and it's still early in the morning. — Apollodorus

Yes, I am tired of this relentless repetition of your beliefs and intolerance of other interpretations. I know that I am not alone.

Why this need to post the same thing across threads? Who are you trying to convince? Are you afraid that someone might read what I have said and decide to read the dialogue? Are you afraid that if they do so they will not see things as you do? Do you think that your tireless repetition will prevent them from drawing their own conclusions?

So, more diversion and evasion.

As I said many times before I have absolutely nothing against your interpretation.

I'm simply asking you to provide some evidence to prove that your interpretation is correct.

Instead of doing that, you retort that you have nothing to prove and that anyone who disagrees with your interpretation is too intolerant or too stupid to see that you are right.

So, I'm beginning to wonder whether you actually realize what you are saying ....

As I said many times before I have absolutely nothing against your interpretation. — Apollodorus

And yet several times a day you come here attempting to pick it apart and repeatedly advocate for your own Neoplatonist view. You have made it knows, why the perverse insistence to repeat it again and again?

I'm simply asking you to provide some evidence to prove that your interpretation is correct. — Apollodorus

You have this notion of the one true interpretation in your head. I am not saying my interpretation is correct. Although I think it can be said that some interpretations are wrong, including your own, I do not think that there is such a thing as the one true, final interpretation. I have said so many times. Instead, I follow the arguments in enough detail suitable to this forum, to allow the reader to draw her own conclusions, conclusions I hope the arguments will show should be tentative and subject to revision if something new comes to light. This is fundamental to the aporetic nature of the dialogues. Something you deny.

The dialogues are informed by Socrates knowledge of his ignorance, and no matter where the arguments go they always return to this. Now you may believe that Plato possesses the divine knowledge that Socrates denies humans possess, but that is an assumption that you will never find sufficient support for in the dialogues. The fact that Plato never says anything in the dialogues is in this respect significant.

You are charmed by stories such as the ascent from the cave, but fail to see that unless you have knowledge of the Good and the rest of the Forms, the story serves as a measure of your ignorance. You mistake stories for the truth itself. As if Plato is a prophet revealing the word of God.

The dialogues are informed by Socrates knowledge of his ignorance, and no matter where the arguments go they always return to this ... The fact that Plato never says anything in the dialogues is in this respect significant. — Fooloso4

OK. So what you are saying is this:

1. Plato never says anything.

2. The only thing that Socrates says is that he knows nothing.

If Plato says nothing and Socrates says he knows nothing, then on what basis do you claim to know that Plato doesn't teach monistic idealism?

The fact that Plato never says anything in the dialogues is in this respect significant. — Fooloso4

:meh:

The literature on this is extensive.

The literature on this is extensive. — Fooloso4

No. It isn't.

Extensive or not, if Plato says nothing, then the literature on it can hardly be anything more than mere speculation ....

And have you read the literature? I just did a quick google search. The first thing that came up is an article in SEP from a fine scholar Charles Griswold. Then something from another scholar whose work I admire, Drew Hyland - "Why Plato Wrote Dialogues". And this: "Modern Views on Plato's Silence"https://voegelinview.com/modern-views-of-platos-silence-pt-1/

None of them say Plato had nothing to say because Socrates knew nothing.

That's absurd.

Extensive or not, if Plato says nothing, then the literature on it can hardly be anything more than mere speculation .... — Apollodorus

Having trouble following along?

If Plato is silent, and he is, then we cannot correctly say that Plato said this or that.

And I didn't say that either.

I also pointed out the Socrates does not say that he knows nothing. Perhaps if you hadn't decided to ignore me you would know that.

If Plato is silent, and he is, then we cannot correctly say that Plato said this or that. — Fooloso4

That's exactly what I'm saying. You can't say anything but are still talking. Not only that, but you are appealing to a mysterious "extensive literature" to "prove" that you are right and others are wrong.

I think I'm beginning to like this .... :rofl:

The dialogues are informed by Socrates knowledge of his ignorance, and no matter where the arguments go they always return to this. Now you may believe that Plato possesses the divine knowledge that Socrates denies humans possess, but that is an assumption that you will never find sufficient support for in the dialogues. The fact that Plato never says anything in the dialogues is in this respect significant. — Fooloso4

You seemed to be saying that above. Good to know you weren't.

Again: Plato was not an atheist. Period.

That's exactly what I'm saying. You can't say anything but are still talking. — Apollodorus

What does Plato say in any of the dialogues?

mysterious extensive literature" — Apollodorus

Nothing mysterious about it. Is google something you find mysterious? Perhaps someone can explain to you how to use it.

I pointed out to frank Voeglin's "Modern Views on Plato's Silence" https://voegelinview.com/modern-views-of-platos-silence-pt-1/ and two other sources simply by using the mysterious google.

Again: Plato was not an atheist. Period. — frank

If he were an atheist do you think he would come right out and say that?

What do you make of the absence of God or gods in the discussion of the Good in the Republic. Why does Socrates say that the Good and not a god is the cause of all things?

If he were an atheist do you think he would come right out and say that? — Fooloso4

The conceptual framework for atheism, as we know it, did not exist then. Stoicism, which was influenced by Socrates, was the closest thing to it in the ancient world, but Stoicism affirms divinity.

Would you please read the above sentences about 10 times until you get that?